The Living Dead: The Rise and Fall of Live Service Games

The video game industry has undergone a significant transformation over the past decade, with the emergence of live service games as a dominant force. These games, characterized by their ongoing updates and monetization strategies, have become a staple for major publishers looking to maximize profits and keep players engaged over extended periods. The rise of live service games can be attributed to several factors, including the increasing costs of developing triple-A titles and the reluctance of players to pay high upfront prices. As development costs soared, the prices for premium games did not increase proportionately, creating a financial strain on publishers. Investors, eager for continuous growth, saw live service games as a solution, offering a steady stream of revenue through subscriptions and microtransactions. However, this model has also led to significant challenges and criticisms, as the industry grapples with the sustainability and ethical implications of these games.

The concept of live service games is not entirely new, but it gained prominence in the 2010s as major publishers like EA and Activision began to see substantial financial success from their investments in this model. Games such as Fortnite, Apex Legends, and Destiny 2 became household names, drawing millions of players with their promise of constant updates and new content. These games utilized a variety of monetization strategies, including battle passes, cosmetic items, and other microtransactions, to keep players spending money long after the initial purchase. The goal was clear: to create a game that players would continue to engage with for years, if not decades. However, the relentless pursuit of player engagement and revenue has also led to some notable failures and a growing sense of fatigue among players and developers alike.

One of the most significant criticisms of live service games is their tendency to feel burdensome and exhausting. Unlike traditional games, which offer a complete experience that can be enjoyed at one’s own pace, live service games require constant engagement to keep up with the latest updates and content. This can create a sense of obligation rather than enjoyment, as players feel pressured to log in regularly to avoid falling behind. The business model of live service games, which revolves around continuous evolution and engagement, stands in stark contrast to the idea of gaming as an escape from the pressures of everyday life. Instead, it often feels like an extension of capitalism, where every moment spent playing is an opportunity for monetization.

The impact of live service games on the gaming experience itself cannot be overstated. These games often lack a clear sense of purpose and structure, as they are designed to be never-ending. This can lead to a diluted experience, where the narrative and gameplay are constantly overshadowed by the need to generate new content and keep players engaged. The author of one of the referenced articles proposes redefining live service games as ‘undead’ games, constantly trying to live forever by consuming players’ time. Within this framework, live service games can be categorized into ‘zombies’ and ‘vampires.’ Zombies are typically free-to-play games that emphasize progression and microtransactions but offer little real progression or satisfaction. Vampires, on the other hand, are premium games that appear to offer narrative and structure but are ultimately limited by the need to continually produce new content.

The financial success of live service games has been undeniable, but it has also come at a cost. Major publishers have seen significant profits from their live service investments, but there have also been notable failures. The competitive gaming landscape during the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated these issues, as publishers scrambled to capture the attention of a captive audience. Examples of high-profile failures include Rocksteady’s Suicide Squad and Sony’s Concord, both of which struggled to meet expectations. Ubisoft’s ten-year project, Skull and Bones, is another example of a live service game expected to face financial difficulties. These failures highlight the risks associated with the live service model, as even well-funded and highly anticipated games can falter in a crowded market.

As a result of these challenges, some publishers are beginning to shift away from live service games. The relentless pursuit of player engagement and revenue has led to a growing sense of fatigue among both players and developers. Live service games can feel like a never-ending grind, with constant updates and microtransactions wearing down players’ desire to continue playing. Children’s games such as Fortnite and Roblox, which heavily rely on monetization, have also been criticized for their manipulative tactics. Many players, including the author of one of the referenced articles, prefer a complete gaming experience that offers a satisfying conclusion rather than a constantly evolving one. The unique experiences and stories that can come from live multiplayer games are appreciated, but the excessive focus on monetization is seen as a barrier to enjoyment.

The volatility of the live service market means that entire games can suddenly disappear, leaving behind players’ time, money, and hard work. Games like Destiny 2, despite receiving critical acclaim and maintaining a large player base, are not immune to layoffs and shutdowns. The constant need for players to invest time and money into live service games can drive away dedicated players, who may feel disillusioned by the endless cycle of updates and monetization. Some companies prioritize live service games over their fan favorites, leading to decisions that alienate their core audience. For example, Bungie’s decision to revive their single-player game Marathon as an extraction shooter has been met with mixed reactions from fans.

The constant pursuit of money through live service games has also led to many games being released before they are fully developed. This rush to market can result in buggy, incomplete experiences that fail to meet player expectations. Cosmetic microtransactions, once seen as a harmless way to support developers, are now viewed with skepticism. Many players feel that these microtransactions are often not worth the price, and the emphasis on monetization detracts from the overall quality of the game. Specific games like Fallout 76 and Babylon’s Fall have been particularly affected by these issues, with their monetization strategies overshadowing the gameplay experience.

Despite these challenges, live service games continue to thrive and bring in massive profits for gaming companies. Popular titles such as Fortnite, Apex Legends, Rocket League, and Destiny 2 have built dedicated communities and maintain large player bases through regular content updates. These games have proven that it is possible to create a successful live service game that is not pay-to-win, allowing for a fair playing field. The longevity of these games, with titles like Fortnite and Destiny 2 being released in 2017 and still going strong, demonstrates the potential for live service games to remain relevant for years. However, building and maintaining a dedicated community requires constant dedication and the ability to adapt to changing player preferences.

Not all live service games have been successful, and there have been notable cancellations and failures in recent years. Games like Concord, The Last of Us Online, and Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League failed to meet expectations for various reasons, not solely because they were live service games. Maintaining a live service game can be expensive and resource-intensive, making it challenging for new entrants to break into the market. However, some recent releases, such as Diablo IV and Deadlock, have managed to gain devoted communities and earn praise from both players and critics. These successes show that it is still possible to create a compelling live service game, even in a crowded market.

The future of live service games remains uncertain, as publishers must navigate the delicate balance between making a profit and creating a sustainable and enjoyable experience for players. The constant need for new content and monetization strategies can strain both players and developers, leading to burnout and disillusionment. Companies must be prepared to adapt and change in order to succeed in this volatile market. Ultimately, the fate of live service games will depend on the ability of publishers to understand and respond to the needs and desires of their player base. As the industry continues to evolve, it is crucial for publishers to remember that their decisions have a significant impact on the players and their experiences in the gaming world.

In conclusion, live service games have become a defining feature of the modern gaming landscape, offering both opportunities and challenges for publishers and players alike. While the financial success of these games is undeniable, the relentless pursuit of engagement and monetization has led to significant criticisms and a growing sense of fatigue. The impact on the gaming experience, the volatility of the market, and the ethical implications of constant monetization are all factors that must be considered as the industry moves forward. As some publishers begin to shift away from live service games, it remains to be seen whether this model can continue to thrive in the long term. The future of live service games will depend on the ability of the industry to strike a balance between profitability and creating meaningful, enjoyable experiences for players.